Of course the Muslims profess the same creator God. But whether they do or not, there is no special rule for them. Anyone who wants salvation must accept Jesus to be the Christ. There is no exception in the word of God. Christ alone purchased it for them.
“The arabic word Allah, used also by Arabic Christians, is no more no less related to the Aramaic Alaha than to the Hebrew Elohim. The three share a common linguistic root, which is nothing exceptional, so no point being dragged on sterile arguments concerning this point.”
However, if that mountain was invisible to the human eye, claimed to speak to human beings, and purportedly left sufficient words and actions to fill many chapters of holy script, then it isn’t (supposedly) the humans who are painting the picture of God, but ostensibly God who was portraying himself to the believers.
Ergo it isn’t two (or three) painters painting the same mountain and just interpreting it differently from different perspectives, it would be God himself making reconcilable or irreconcilable claims about himself in each. Figuratively, it would be the mountain “painting” itself on the canvas.
Ergo if it is the same God painting accurate portraits of himself at different times in history and if those portraits are wildly at odds with each other, there doesn’t seem to be any way that the same God was behind the respective revelations. Claims that it is the same God representing himself differently would rightly be treated with something more than skepticism.
This doesn’t imply anything about which is the true or truest or complete representation of God, since that is a separate problem.
In short, if any religion is, at ground, merely human beings trying to represent God, then your artist paradigm would seem to apply.
However, all three religions are not making that kind of claim. Each is claiming that God is revealing himself to each set of believers. And since those God-revelations of himself are wildly discordant, there doesn’t seem to be any way that it could be the same God who could possibly be revealing himself.
In other words, you would have to assume that the portrait of God being painted is merely a human representation or depiction of the same God, but that is not the Catholic, Islamic nor Jewish claim. Each claims that God did the revealing of himself and it is the true God being worshiped by them.
That, to me, is an insoluble problem for anyone who wants to claim God actually revealed himself in their own religion, but that it is also the same God being worshiped the other religions despite the fact that that same religion claims the God it worships revealed himself differently to its believers as compared to other believers. That makes the position logically inconsistent with itself.
Each religion claims itself and other religions to be merely human representations of God. Your painter analogy works.
Each religion claims God actually revealed himself to it, but the other religions are merely human representations of God. That would make “We all worship the same God” statement true with the proviso that “we” possess God’s revelation of himself while the others are merely human representations of God. Same God, but only we have God’s self-revelation.
Each religion claims to have God’s self-revelation, but these are contradictory, so the same God could not have revealed himself. Ergo, the same God is not being worshiped by all three.
In a sense, this is a trilemma. Only one of the above can be true.
Any religion that makes a claim that It is God revealing himself in the Holy Script of that religion, cannot logically accept that another religion has authentic revelation from God, if the depictions contradict, but would, of necessity, be implying that the other religions are merely human depictions and not actual revelation – regarding any contradictions.
Except a Catholic cannot espouse the painter analogy without tacitly admitting their faith is about a merely a human rendition of God – i.e., merely a human portrait of God – no more or less accurate than any other human attempt to represent God.
Why so severe? Is the idea of a human perspective of God so unsettling? I assure you. What theologians know about God is quite a human matter. For He meets us where we are. That thought should humble each of us. Indeed, He took on our very flesh and walked among us for the sake of all humanity. But that is not all. The best is yet to come.
Except that what theologians know about God isn’t what the faith of each of the three Abrahamic religions is founded upon. It isn’t like science where the enterprise is left entirely to human endeavor. Each religion claims revelation from God is its foundation. None claim that its respective religion is based upon what the top theologians under its auspices tell it about God. They are, all three, revealed religions. God saying this or that about his plans and himself. Ergo, if each God says different things, it cannot logically be the same God doing the revealing, irrespective of what the human believers say about God. It is what God says about himself that makes him the object of worship in each case.
Revelation is to human beings. Therefore, it must be filtered through the experiences of those particular human beings in the contexts of their times and places and presuppositions. Even Socrates noted variances in perception of the sensible world from one person to another. Why then would such a dynamic not be at play also in matters of revelation? Revelation, once recieved, must be unpacked. Indeed, this process may take centuries for communities of faith and entire lifetimes for the individuals within these communities. For such matters are not mere facts or data or a collection of laws. Rather, they are a delving into the very mystery of a Loving God who chooses to form relationships with mere humans regardless of their disagreements, flaws, and sinfulness and lack of understanding.
My two cents form a non believers perspective is that this thread is a bad look. I’m often sent links to the catechism to show what the Church believes. How can that be taken seriously when, all though the catechism answers the question in this thread, half the Catholics on here just ignore it or call it mistaken?
I don’t get it.
For the Catholics on this thread you have a magisterium answer so your personal opinion is irrelevant.
The rest of us (unless our denomination has opinioned either way) are free to think whatever
I haven’t seen anything compelling put forth in this thread to cause me to think that they are not the same. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all claim a line back to the God of Abraham. While one could point out many differences between these religions, the God they worship is not one of them. If you were to contend that this was the case, I would need to see a well outlined case for it.
Correction that is Matthew 27:46. There is no Mark 27?
Please be informed that when Jesus spoke those words from the Cross. Jesus was completing (eternally fulfilling) the Sedar, in short, Jesus was reciting or shall we say fulfilling the Whole of Pslam 22 on the Cross as witnessed to all the world.
In retrospect, When ever Jesus addressed God, Jesus spoke to God in the first person and always addressed God as “Father”.
In Islam it is heretical and or blasphemy for anyone to address God as “Father”. Jesus addressed God as Father in the first person, which would leave anyone in Islam to understand that Jesus was never a Muslim.
No Muslim addresses the One God, One Creator as Father. (unless he/she enters into Islamic heresy)
I address the One God, One Creator as Father, just as my Lord Jesus Christ teaches me to.